netintel_crypto_price

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: Coinbase primary with Kraken and CoinGecko fallback, no API key required, cache age per asset, and that 24h change is only present 'when the source provides it'. This is solid operational context, though rate limits and error behavior are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by source, pricing, and return-field details in a compact em-dash structure. Mostly dense with little waste, though the run-on length slightly hurts scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, data sources, fallback, and caching. It still omits parameter formats, defaults for 'vs', and rate/error behavior, so it is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and partially does: it maps the accepted quote currencies to 'vs' (USD, EUR, GBP) and illustrates 'symbols' with BTC, ETH, SOL plus a 25-coin cap. It never specifies the actual input format (comma-separated string? array?), leaving a real gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — live cryptocurrency spot prices — with concrete scope (up to 25 coins per call, BTC/ETH/SOL examples, USD/EUR/GBP). It clearly implies batch spot-price retrieval as distinct from single-asset or OHLC tools, though it never names a sibling such as netintel_crypto_ohlc or netintel_crypto_market explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'up to 25 coins in one call' and 'no API key, one flat price' signal a fast batch spot-price lookup with no auth friction. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. crypto_ohlc for historical candles), so the agent must infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.